Detailed Action
Receipt of Applicant’s amendment, filed 09/11/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 1, 9, 12, and 19 have been amended.
Claims 2, 6, 8, and 10 have been canceled.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7, 9, 11-20 are pending in this office action.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined
under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
Acknowledgement is made of amended claims 1, 12, and 19. Rejections to claims 1, 12, and 19 are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101
Acknowledgement is made of amended claims 1 and 19 to include limitations previously recited in claims 2,6, 8 and 10 (now canceled). Applicant arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive for at least the reasons given below in Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 101 section.
Applicant argues [Pg.7] amended claims 1 and 19 now traverse previous rejections. Upon careful re-evaluation under the Office’s eligibility framework, Examiner respectfully disagrees. As can be seen in below in Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 101 section, the amended limitations amount to Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity (mere data gathering and outputting) and/or Field of Use and Technological Environment per MPEP 2106.05(g) and 2106.05(h), without significantly more than the judicial exception per MPEP 2106.05(d). Therefore, previous rejections are maintained.
Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Acknowledgement is made of amended claims 1 and 19 to include limitations previously recited in claims 2,6, 8 and 10 (now canceled). Applicant arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive for at least the reasons given below and in Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 103 section.
Applicant argues [Pg.9 P.2-3] that referenced art (i.e. Kirkwood) in previous Office Action dated 6/12/2025 does not disclose that the CAD and CAE systems are not integrated. Applicant specifically cites Kirkwood [Sec.1.2.2] and states “Kirkwood merely discloses that heterogeneous files can be directly exported/imported during file transfer [...] the scenario described in Kirkwood does not limit CAD and CAE to be separate systems [...] the present invention is to address the problem of file exchange caused by lack of integration between CAD and CAE systems, thereby specifically limiting the use case to situations where the CAD system is not integrated with the CAE system.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. Kirkwood [Section 1.2] is comparing the 2 types of established CAD/CAE integration approaches, since CAD and CAE systems are understood to not be integrated into one system. The 2 types of established CAD/CAE integration approaches are Homogenous Integration (Kirkwood [Sec.1.2.1]) and Export/Import (heterogeneous) Integration (Kirkwood [Sec.1.2.2]). Kirkwood doesn’t “merely disclose” that heterogeneous files can be imported/exported during file transfer. Kirkwood argues that heterogeneous integration is the ideal integration approach. In fact, the purpose of the article is to address the lack of sustained integration between CAD/CAE systems and provide a heterogeneous approach, much like the claimed invention. Kirkwood [Pg.5 1.4 Summary] discloses, “This article introduces a sustained integration solution that uses neutral format data as-is”, and [Pg.7 4 Case Study] “The case study shown here is a first-pass demonstration of sustained integration between a finite-element meshing application and a solid imported via neutral format. The chosen import format for this case is IGES. The authors recommend STEP, but IGES is used for this case to emphasize that none of the advanced aspects of STEP are required to support sustained integration [...] The reader is invited to observe that the backstory to this case study might be any of several scenarios: The obvious scenario would be a subcontractor or department using a finite-element mesher that is not compatible with the CAD format (i.e. CAD/CAE systems not integrated) of the overall enterprise.” Therefore, Applicant’s argument isn’t persuasive.
Applicant argues [Pg.9 P.4 – Pg.11 P.1] that referenced art (i.e. Kirpac) in previous Office Action dated 6/12/2025 does not disclose the feature of “the topological data of the object entity remains unchanged”. Applicant’s argument has been considered but is moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argues [Pg.11 P.2] that referenced art (i.e. Park) in previous Office Action dated 6/12/2025 “only discloses the use of user scripting to connect the CAE and CAD systems, but does not disclose using user scripting to actuate the CAE and CAD systems.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. It is not unreasonable to one of ordinary skill in the art to interpret a user using script to “connect” the CAE/CAD systems as a user using script to “actuate” the CAE/CAD systems. Since the CAE and CAD systems are not integrated (i.e. do not incorporate the same file format), one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that in order to import/export a non-native/proprietary file to/from the respective software (i.e. CAE or CAD) requires a user to manually, via script, facilitate the process (i.e. actuate). Moreover, Park [Pg.893 Col.2 P.2] discloses “Any CAE software that supports programming and I/O command can be used to implement the proposed framework [...] For Abaqus, the users can use the Abaqus scripting language based on the Python object oriented programming language to access the functionality of Abaqus/CAE. By programming, the designers can import the model, assign materials, loads, and boundary conditions.” Therefore, Applicant’s argument isn’t persuasive.
Applicant argues, [Pg.12 P.1] “it is unreasonable to equate the disclosure of Park with the technology of the present application.” In response to applicant's argument that Park is non-analogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Park is analogous art as it relates to a framework that attempts to integrate CAD-CAE systems. Park discloses “This paper
presents a framework that performs the integration between commercial CAD-CAE software by using common scripting, programming languages and Application Programming Interface.” [Abstract].
Applicant also argues [Pg.12 P.1] “Even assuming that the primary reference Kirkwood discloses CAD and CAE as not integrated, combining the teachings of Kirkwood with those of Park would still be unreasonable.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Park is analogous art as it relates to a framework that attempts to integrate CAD-CAE systems, as previously discussed.
Therefore, Applicant’s arguments aren’t persuasive.
Similar rationale is extended to remaining claims. Please refer to Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 103 section below for additional information.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7, 9 and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites a judicial exception, is directed to that judicial exception (an abstract idea), as it has not been integrated into a practical application and the claim(s) further do/does not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Examiner has evaluated the claim(s) under the framework provided in the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register 01/07/2019 and has provided such analysis below.
To determine if a claim is directed to patent ineligible subject matter, the Court
has guided the Office to apply the Alice/Mayo test, which requires:
Step 1. Determining if the claim falls within a statutory category of a Process, Machine, Manufacture, or a Composition of Matter (see MPEP 2106.03);
Step 2A. Determining if the claim is directed to a patent ineligible judicial exception consisting of a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or abstract idea (MPEP 2106.04);
Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry. MPEP 2106.04(II)(A).
Under the first prong, examiners evaluate whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. Abstract ideas include mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).
The second prong is an inquiry into whether the claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application. MPEP 2106.04(d).
Step 2B. If the claim is directed to a judicial exception, determining if the claim recites limitations or elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106).
Step 1:
Claims 1, 3-5, 7, 9 and 11-20 are directed to a method, as such these claims fall within the statutory category of a Process.
Step 2A, Prong I:
The examiner submits that the foregoing claim limitations constitute abstract ideas, as the claims cover mental processes and mathematical concepts, given the broadest reasonable interpretation.
In order to apply Step 2A, a recitation of claims is copied below. The limitations of those claims which describe an abstract idea are bolded.
As per claim 1, the claim recites the limitations of:
A method of optimizing a design model, comprising:
providing the design model in a CAD system, wherein the design model includes
an object entity represented by a geometrical data and a topological data;
assigning a first label to the object entity in the CAD system; (As drafted and
under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation amounts to Mental Processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)) which are defined as concepts that can practically be performed in the human mind (e.g. observations, evaluations, judgments, opinions), or by a human using pen and paper as a physical aid. Specifically, the limitation is directed towards performing a mental process on a generic computer. For instance, a person can reasonably assign a label to an object entity with/without the aid of pen/paper.)
transforming the first label into a second label to establish a first mapping
in the CAD system; (“to establish a first mapping” is considered intended use – no patentable weight is given. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation amounts to Mental Processes performed on a generic computer per MPEP 2106.04 (a)(2). For instance, a person can reasonably reassign (i.e. transform) a first label into a second label with/without the aid of pen and paper. The limitation can also be interpreted as Mathematical Concepts per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I). Specifically, mathematical relationships between the first/second labels.)
exporting a first neutral file of the design model including the second label, the
geometrical data and the topological data from the CAD system;
importing the first neutral file into a CAE system and transforming the second label into a third label to establish a second mapping in the CAE system; (“to establish a second mapping” is considered intended use – no patentable weight is given. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation amounts to Mental Processes performed on a generic computer per MPEP 2106.04 (a)(2). For instance, a person can reasonably reassign (i.e. transform) a second label into a third label with/without the aid of pen and paper. The limitation can also be interpreted as Mathematical Concepts per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I). Specifically, mathematical relationships between the second/third labels.)
analyzing the design model by the CAE system; (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation amounts to Mental Processes performed on a generic computer per MPEP 2106.04 (a)(2). For instance, a person can reasonably analyze (i.e. observation, evaluation) the design model, with/without the aid of pen/paper.)
deriving a first modified geometrical data for the object entity based on the analysis for optimizing the design model by an optimization system; (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation amounts to Mental Processes performed on a generic computer per MPEP 2106.04 (a)(2). For example, a person can reasonably analyze (i.e. observation, evaluation) the design model and derive modified geometrical data based on the analysis, with/without the aid of pen/paper.)
exporting a first data file including the first modified geometrical data for the
object entity, and the second label derived from the third label based on the second mapping stored in the CAE system;
importing the first data file into the CAD system and transforming the second label into the first label based on the first mapping stored in the CAD system; (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation amounts to Mental Processes performed on a generic computer per MPEP 2106.04 (a)(2). For instance, a person can reasonably reassign (i.e. transform) the second label into the first label, based on (i.e. evaluate) the mapping, with/without the aid of pen and paper. The limitation can also be interpreted as Mathematical Concepts per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I). Specifically, mathematical relationships between the first/second labels.) and
replacing the geometrical data of the object entity assigned the first label with the first modified geometrical data in the first data file to generate a first modified design model in the CAD system. (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation recites Mathematical Concepts per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(A). Specifically, the limitation amounts to mathematical relationships which is a relationship between variables or numbers. A mathematical relationship may be expressed in words or using mathematical symbols. Examples of mathematical relationships recited in a claim include: iv. organizing information and manipulating information through mathematical correlations, Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1350, 111 USPQ2d 1717, 1721 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The patentee in Digitech claimed methods of generating first and second data by taking existing information, manipulating the data using mathematical functions, and organizing this information into a new form. The court explained that such claims were directed to an abstract idea because they described a process of organizing information through mathematical correlations, like Flook's method of calculating using a mathematical formula. 758 F.3d at 1350, 111 USPQ2d at 1721.)
wherein the CAD system is not integrated with the CAE system,
wherein the first label is readable and accessible exclusively by the CAD system,
and wherein the third label is readable and accessible exclusively by the CAE system
wherein a native file in a proprietary file format is generated by or exported from the CAD system during an exportation of the first neutral file,
wherein the native file is readable and accessible exclusively by the CAD system, and the first neutral file is readable and accessible by the CAD system and the CAE system,
wherein the topological data of the object entity remains unchanged during a design- analysis-optimization cycle of the method,
wherein the method further comprises: actuating the CAE system by a first user scripting prior to the importation of the first neutral file into the CAE system; and
actuating the CAD system by a second user scripting prior to the importation of the first data file into the CAD system.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
As per claim 1, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional claim limitations outside the abstract idea only present general field of use and/or insignificant extra solution activity. In particular, the claim recites the additional limitations:
providing the design model in a CAD system, wherein the design model includes an object entity represented by a geometrical data and a topological data; (The additional element amounts to Insignificant Extra-solution Activity (mere data gathering, pre-solution activity) per MPEP 2106.05(g). The term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process. The act of “providing the design model in a CAD system” is interpreted as pre-solution activity, i.e. mere data gathering.),
assigning a first label to the object entity in the CAD system; (The additional element amounts to Field of Use and Technological Environment per MPEP 2106.05(h). “In the CAD system” is interpreted as limiting the abstract idea (i.e. mental process) to a particular technological environment (i.e. CAD system). Employing generic computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment, does not add significantly more.)
transforming the first label into a second label to establish a first mapping in the CAD system; (The additional element amounts to Field of Use and Technological Environment per MPEP 2106.05(h). “In the CAD system” is interpreted as limiting the abstract idea (i.e. mental process) to a particular technological environment (i.e. CAD system). Employing generic computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment, does not add significantly more.)
exporting a first neutral file of the design model including the second label,
the geometrical data and the topological data from the CAD system; (The additional element amounts to Insignificant Extra-solution Activity (mere data gathering and outputting) per MPEP 2106.05(g). The term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process. The act of “exporting a first neutral file” is interpreted as pre-solution activity, i.e. mere data gathering/outputting.),
importing the first neutral file into a CAE system and transforming the second label into a third label to establish a second mapping in the CAE system; (The additional element amounts to Insignificant Extra-solution Activity (pre-solution activity, mere data gathering) per MPEP 2106.05(g). An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process. The act of “importing the first neutral file” is interpreted as pre-solution activity, i.e. mere data gathering.),
analyzing the design model by the CAE system (The additional element amounts to Field of Use and Technological Environment per MPEP 2106.05(h). “By the CAE system” is interpreted as limiting the abstract idea (i.e. mental process) to a particular technological environment (i.e. CAE system). Employing generic computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment, does not add significantly more.)
deriving a first modified geometrical data for the object entity based on the analysis for optimizing the design model by an optimization system (The additional element amounts to Field of Use and Technological Environment per MPEP 2106.05(h). “By an optimization system” is interpreted as limiting the abstract idea (i.e. mental process) to a particular technological environment (i.e. optimization system). Employing generic computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment, does not add significantly more.)
exporting a first data file including the first modified geometrical data for the object entity, and the second label derived from the third label based on the second mapping stored in the CAE system (The additional element amounts to Insignificant Extra-solution Activity (mere data gathering and outputting) per MPEP 2106.05(g). The term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. The act of “exporting a first data file” is interpreted as mere data gathering/outputting.)
importing the first data file into the CAD system and transforming the second label into the first label based on the first mapping stored in the CAD system (The additional element amounts to Insignificant Extra-solution Activity (mere data gathering) per MPEP 2106.05(g). The act of “importing the first data file” is interpreted as mere data gathering.)
wherein the CAD system is not integrated with the CAE system, (The amended limitation is directed to Field Of Use And Technological Environment per MPEP 2106.05(h). This limitation is interpreted as limiting the abstract idea (i.e. mental process) to a particular technological environment (i.e. non-integrated CAD/CAE systems). Employing generic computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment, does not add significantly more.)
wherein the first label is readable and accessible exclusively by the CAD
system, (The limitation is directed to Field Of Use And Technological Environment per MPEP 2106.05(h). This limitation is interpreted as limiting the abstract idea (i.e. mental process) to a particular technological environment (i.e. CAD system). Employing generic computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment, does not add significantly more.)
and wherein the third label is readable and accessible exclusively by the
CAE system (The limitation is directed to Field Of Use And Technological Environment per MPEP 2106.05(h). This limitation is interpreted as limiting the abstract idea (i.e. mental process) to a particular technological environment (i.e. CAE system). Employing generic computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment, does not add significantly more.)
wherein a native file in a proprietary file format is generated by or exported from the CAD system during an exportation of the first neutral file, wherein the native file is readable and accessible exclusively by the CAD system, (The additional element amounts to Insignificant Extra-solution Activity (mere data gathering and outputting) per MPEP 2106.05(g). The term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. The act of exporting files is interpreted as mere data gathering/outputting. Also, the limitation does not limit the claim since CAD systems generating and/or exporting files in a native/proprietary format is well known. It is also well known that native files are readable and accessible exclusively by the system that generated them, in this case the CAD system. This limitation is also directed towards Field Of Use And Technological Environment per MPEP 2106.05(h). This limitation is interpreted as limiting the abstract idea (i.e. mental process) to a particular technological environment (i.e. CAD system). Employing generic computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment, does not add significantly more.))
and the first neutral file is readable and accessible by the CAD system and the CAE system, (The limitation is directed to Field Of Use And Technological Environment per MPEP 2106.05(h). This limitation is interpreted as limiting the abstract idea (i.e. mental process) to a particular technological environment (i.e. CAD/CAE systems). Employing generic computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment, does not add significantly more. Also, the limitation does not limit the claim since the use of “neutral” files between software systems that utilize differing data file formats is well known.)
wherein the topological data of the object entity remains unchanged during a design-analysis-optimization cycle of the method, (The additional element elaborates on the data being exported/imported, which amounts to mere data gathering/outputting, therefore the limitation further amounts to Insignificant Extra-solution Activity per MPEP 2106.05(g).)
wherein the method further comprises: actuating the CAE system by a first user scripting prior to the importation of the first neutral file into the CAE system; and actuating the CAD system by a second user scripting prior to the importation of the first data file into the CAD system. (The additional limitations amount to Insignificant Extra-solution Activity per MPEP 2106.05(g). Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process. “Actuating” the separate systems prior to the importation of neutral files is interpreted as pre-solution activity (mere data gathering) since the act is necessitated by the importation of a neutral file into non-integrated systems.)
These additional limitations must be considered individually and with the claim as a whole to determine if it integrates the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim, as a whole, is linked to CAD and CAE file formatting with analysis, but there are no particular physical elements or steps that add a meaningful limitation to transform the abstract idea into the physical process of actually affecting or implementing the resulting design changes in the CAD or CAE systems. Thus, the claim does not integrate the identified abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B:
Moving on to step 2B of the analysis, the Examiner must consider whether each claim limitation individually or as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. This analysis includes determining whether an inventive concept is furnished by an element or a combination of elements that are beyond the judicial exception. For limitations that were categorized as “apply it” or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, the analysis is the same. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations are considered directed towards field of use and/or insignificant extra-solution activity. As Berkheimer evidence, the claim elements “providing the design model in a CAD system”, “exporting a first neutral file of the design model”, “importing the first neutral file into a CAE system”, “exporting a first data file including the first modified geometrical data for the object entity”, and “importing the first data file into the CAD system” are well understood, routine, and conventional. MPEP 2106.05(g) provides support that mere data gathering and output are well understood, routine, and conventional. The additional claim elements are considered to be well understood, routine and conventional, because of the disclosure of Applicant’s Specification at paragraphs [0042], [0044], [0051], [0069] and [0076], which provides that the analysis and systems can be systems “generally known in the art,” along with the prior art relied upon with the 35 USC 103 rejections section below.
Furthermore, Per MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added));
ii. Performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199 (recomputing or readjusting alarm limit values); Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("The computer required by some of Bancorp' s claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims.");
iii. Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log);
iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;
For the foregoing reasons, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Claim 2 has been canceled.
Claim 3 recites, wherein the first neutral file and the first data file are in a neutral, generic or non-proprietary file format. These feature(s) have been considered in combination with the feature required by the claim(s) from which it depends. The additional feature(s) elaborate on the files to be exported/imported which are considered to be mere data gathering/outputting; thus, the limitation is further directed towards Insignificant Extra-solution Activity (mere data gathering and outputting) per MPEP 2106.05(g). Therefore, the claim is considered to be ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Claim 4 recites, wherein the first neutral file and the first data file are in STEP file format, DWG file format, STL file format or DXT file format. These feature(s) have been considered in combination with the feature required by the claim(s) from which it depends. The additional feature(s) elaborate on the files to be exported/imported which are considered to be mere data gathering/outputting; thus, the limitation is further directed towards Insignificant Extra-solution Activity (mere data gathering and outputting) per MPEP 2106.05(g). The courts have found selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated to be insignificant extra-solution activity. The limitation is also directed towards Field of Use and Technological Environment per MPEP 2106.05(h), since the additional elements amount to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e. data type). Therefore, the claim is considered to be ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Claim 5 recites, wherein the optimization system is external to the CAD system and the CAE system. These feature(s) have been considered in combination with the feature required by the claim(s) from which it depends. The limitation is directed towards Field of Use and Technological Environment per MPEP 2106.05(h), since the additional elements amount to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Therefore, the claim is considered to be ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Claim 6 has been canceled.
Claim 7 recites, further comprising transforming the design model into a mesh model by the CAE system prior to the analysis of the design model. These feature(s) have been considered in combination with the feature required by the claim(s) from which it depends. The additional feature(s) are considered to disclose mathematical relationships (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(A)(iv)) and using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)(3)). Therefore, the claim is considered to be ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Claim 8 has been canceled.
Claim 9, recites, wherein only the first neutral file is imported into the CAE system. These feature(s) have been considered in combination with the feature required by the claim(s) from which it depends. The additional feature is considered to disclose Insignificant Extra-solution Activity (mere data gathering) per MPEP 2106.05(g). Therefore, the claim is considered to be ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Claim 10 has been canceled.
Claim 11 recites, providing the first modified design model in the CAD system, wherein the first modified design model includes the object entity assigned the first label and represented by the first modified geometrical data and the topological data; exporting a second neutral file of the first modified design model including the second label derived from the first label based on the first mapping, the first modified geometrical data and the topological data from the CAD system; importing the second neutral file into the CAE system; (These feature(s) have been considered in combination with the feature required by the claim(s) from which it depends. The additional features are considered to disclose Insignificant Extra-solution Activity (mere data gathering/outputting) per MPEP 2106.05(g). The term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. The acts of “providing the first modified design model in the CAD system” and “importing the second neutral file” are considered mere data gathering, which the courts have found to be insignificant extra-solution activity. The act of “exporting a second neutral file” is considered mere data outputting.) and analyzing the first modified design model by the CAE system (The additional features are considered to disclose Mental Processes per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). Specifically, using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process, since a person can reasonably analyze (i.e. observe, evaluate, and judge) the first modified design model. The limitation is also directed towards Field of Use and Technological Environment per 2106.05(h) since the additional elements amount to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e. a CAE system).)
Therefore, the claim is considered to be ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Claim 12, which is dependent on claim 11, recites, wherein the topological data of the object entity remains unchanged. These feature(s) have been considered in combination with the feature required by the claim(s) from which it depends. The additional features elaborate on the data considered insignificant extra-solution activity; thus, the limitation is further directed towards Insignificant Extra-solution Activity (mere data gathering/outputting) per MPEP 2106.05(g). Therefore, the claim is considered to be ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Claim 13, which is dependent on claim 11, recites, wherein the second neutral file is in a neutral, generic or non-proprietary file format. These feature(s) have been considered in combination with the feature required by the claim(s) from which it depends. The additional features elaborate on the data considered insignificant extra-solution activity; thus, the limitation is further directed towards Insignificant Extra-solution Activity (mere data gathering/outputting) per MPEP 2106.05(g). Furthermore, the courts have found that selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated is considered insignificant extra-solution activity. Therefore, the claim is considered to be ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Claim 14, which is dependent on claim 11, recites, wherein the second neutral file is in STEP file format, DWG file format, STL file format or DXT file format. These feature(s) have been considered in combination with the feature required by the claim(s) from which it depends. The additional features elaborate on the data considered insignificant extra-solution activity; thus, the limitation is further directed towards Insignificant Extra-solution Activity (mere data gathering/outputting) per MPEP 2106.05(g). Furthermore, the courts have found that selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated is considered insignificant extra-solution activity. Therefore, the claim is considered to be ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Claim 15, which is dependent on claim 11, recites, deriving a second modified geometrical data for the object entity based on the analysis for optimizing the first modified design model by the optimization system; (These feature(s) have been considered in combination with the feature required by the claim(s) from which it depends. The additional features amount to using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), since a person can reasonably derive, with/without the aid of pen/paper, a second modified geometrical data by observing and evaluating the first modified design model. The limitation is also directed towards Field of Use and Technological Environment per 2106.05(h) since the additional element amounts to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e. the optimization system).)
exporting a second data file including the second modified geometrical data for the object entity (The additional feature is considered to disclose Insignificant Extra-solution Activity (mere data gathering/outputting) per MPEP 2106.05(g)), and the second label derived from the third label based on the second mapping stored in the CAE system; (The additional feature is considered to disclose Mental Processes per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). Specifically, using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process, since a person can reasonably analyze (i.e. observe, evaluate, and judge) the third label based on the second mapping and then derive, with/without the aid of pen/paper, a second label. The limitation is also directed towards Field of Use and Technological Environment per 2106.05(h) since the additional elements amount to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e. a CAE system).)
importing the second data file into the CAD system (The additional feature is considered to disclose Insignificant Extra-solution Activity (mere data gathering) per MPEP 2106.05(g)) and transforming the second label into the first label based on the first mapping stored in the CAD system; (The additional feature is considered to disclose Mental Processes per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). Specifically, using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process, since a person can reasonably reassign (i.e. transform) the second label, after evaluating the first mapping, into the first label, with/without the aid of pen/paper.)
and replacing the first modified geometrical data of the object entity assigned the first label with the second modified geometrical data in the second data file to generate a second modified design model in the CAD system. (The additional feature is considered to disclose Mathematical Concepts per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). Specifically, the limitation is directed towards Mathematical Relationships (iv. Organizing information and manipulating information through mathematical correlations)
Due to the foregoing reasons, claim 15 is considered to be ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Claim 16, which is dependent on claim 15, recites, wherein the second modified design model is generated by changing a dimension of the object entity of the first modified design model. The additional feature is considered to disclose Mental Processes per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). Specifically, using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process, since a person can reasonably change a dimension of a design model to create another, with/without to aid of pen and paper. The additional limitation can also be perceived as mathematical relationships per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(A)(iv). Therefore, the claim is considered to be ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Claim 17, which is dependent on claim 15, recites, wherein the replacement of the first modified geometrical data with the second modified geometrical data includes removing the first modified geometrical data and inserting the second modified geometrical data from the second data file. The additional feature is considered to disclose Mental Processes per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). Specifically, using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process, since a person can reasonably remove and replace data, with/without to aid of pen and paper. The additional limitation can also be perceived as mathematical relationships per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(A)(iv). Therefore, the claim is considered to be ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Claim 18, which is dependent on claim 15, is directed to substantially the same subject matter as independent claim 1 and is rejected under similar rationale and further failure to add significantly more.
Independent claim 19 is directed to substantially the same subject matter as independent claim 1 and is rejected under similar rationale and further failure to add significantly more.
Claim 20, which is dependent on claim 19, recites, wherein the modified design model includes the first object entity represented by the first modified geometrical data and the first topological data, and the second object entity represented by the second geometrical data and the second topological data. These feature(s) have been considered in combination with the feature required by the claim(s) from which it depends. The additional feature(s) are considered to disclose a mathematical relationships per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(A)(iv). Therefore, the claim is considered to be ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
(Note: Claims 2, 6, 8, 10 have been canceled)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3, 7, 9, 11-13, 15, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kirkwood, Robert, and James A. Sherwood. "Sustained CAD/CAE integration: integrating with successive versions of step or IGES files." Engineering with Computers 34 (2018): 1-13 (hereinafter referred to as “Kirkwood”) in view of Kirkwood, Robert, and James A. Sherwood. "Sustained cad integration: a proposed method to resolve deficiencies related to data export/import." International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference. Vol. 55867. American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 2013. (hereinafter referred to as “Kirkwood 2”), in view of Wu, Junjun, et al. "A face based mechanism for naming, recording and retrieving topological entities." Computer-Aided Design 33.10 (2001): 687-698. (hereinafter referred to as “Wu”), and in further view of Park, Hong-Seok, and Xuan-Phuong Dang. "Structural optimization based on CAD–CAE integration and metamodeling techniques." Computer-Aided Design 42.10 (2010): 889-902. (hereinafter referred to as “Park”).
Regarding amended Claim 1, Kirkwood discloses providing the design model in a CAD system, wherein the design model includes an object entity represented by a geometrical data and a topological data; (“The most easily understood approach reassigns the identifiers, such that they are restored as they would have been with a native-edited solid model. With imported geometry, even the first set of identifiers is different from those in the source CAD system. However, as long as the identifiers in successive imports are consistent with the originally imported geometry, then associativity for the downstream applications remains intact” Pages [6-7] Section [3] Para [1]. Examiner interprets the solid model (design model) to include an object entity because “the surface where it is applied is no longer a valid entity in the model” Page [5] Sec [1.3.2] Para [3]. The Examiner also interprets the object entity to be represented by geometrical data because “When another application needs to refer to one of those geometric entities, it does so via those identifiers” Page [2] Sec [1.1.1] Para [2]. Also, the Examiner interprets “associativity” as topological data because of applicant’s disclosure within Specification Paragraph [0038])
assigning a first label to the object entity in the CAD system; (“Most solid modeling kernels have more than one scheme for identifying geometric entities. The primary identifier is typically assigned and managed by the modeling kernel and visible to calling applications as a read-only property.” Page [6] Section [2.3] Para [1]. The Examiner interprets “primary identifier” as first label.)
transforming the first label into a second label to establish a first mapping in the CAD system; (“A second identifier is typically a string that is presented to calling applications and ultimately to users as an optional read/write property. Several CAD systems call this second identifier a “name”.” Page [6] Section [2.3] Column 2. The Examiner interprets “identifier” as label. Kirkwood further discloses “A map of identifiers that relates each entity in Fig. 1 to its corresponding entity in Fig. 2 would accommodate a repair of the integration, such that the integration continues to work across successive edits.” Page [6] Section [3] Para [1])
exporting a first neutral file of the design model including the second label, the geometrical data and the topological data from the CAD system; (“The solid models (strap and nut) for the assembly (123-A) export from the CAD system and are imported” Page [8], Section [4.2], Para [3]. “With imported geometry, even the first set of identifiers is different from those in the source CAD system. However, as long as the identifiers in successive imports are consistent with the originally imported geometry, then associativity for the downstream applications remains intact”. Page [7] Section [3] Para [1]. “Figure 6 shows the detail workflow for the original finite element analysis and shows how persistent identifiers interact when one attempts sustained integration using export/import of neutral files.” The Examiner interprets “123-A” as the neutral file, “identifiers” as the label and “associativity” as topological data (per applicant’s definition within Specification Paragraph [0038]). Page [10] Figure 12 captures this as well.)
importing the first neutral file into a CAE system and transforming the second label into a third label to establish a second mapping in the CAE system; (“Figure 6 shows the detail workflow for the original finite element analysis and shows how persistent identifiers interact when one attempts sustained integration using export/import of neutral files.” Page [8] Section [4.2] Para [1]. Figure 6 teaches the transformation of identifiers (labels) from the CAD system (123-A) to the CAE system (123-A’). Examiner interprets the changes as mapping in the C